ROBERT LEE AND HELEN HEARD V GREGORY LEE HC ROT CIV 2010-463-000430

ROBERT LEE AND HELEN HEARD V GREGORY LEE HC ROT CIV 2010-463-000430

The 2000 Deed was a variation/implementation of the 1997 arrangements and no new cause of action arose in 2000; the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued in 1997, the delay in prosecuting claims was excessive and prejudicial, plaintiffs failed to provide evidentiary basis (eg medical reports) to justify extension under s24 or to avoid application of equitable delay principles, accordingly the proceeding was struck out as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process and costs awarded to defendant.

Citation
openlaw-7d3f0508_34fb_4c15_a482_92cffd670b9f.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Robert Lee; Plaintiff: Helen Heard; Defendant: Gregory Lee
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
6 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Equity (undue Influence, Unconscionable Bargain, Breach of Fiduciary Duty) / Strike Out Application Decided (judgment)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' proceeding struck out
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Unconscionable Bargain, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Limitation Act 1950, Strike Out for Being Statute Barred, Laches, Deed of Trust, Share Transfer
Equity Company Law Limitation Law Undue Influence Unconscionable Bargain Breach of Fiduciary Duty Limitation Act 1950 Strike Out for Being Statute Barred +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Lee

Plaintiff

Helen Heard

Plaintiff

Gregory Lee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity (undue Influence, Unconscionable Bargain, Breach of Fiduciary Duty) / Strike Out Application Decided (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs' claims are statute barred under Limitation Act 1950 and accrued in 1997 or 2000
  2. 2 Whether s4(9) of the Limitation Act removes the 12 year bar for equitable relief or permits court to apply limitation by analogy
  3. 3 Whether s24 (extension for disability) applies to extend limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The 2000 Deed was a variation/implementation of the 1997 arrangements and no new cause of action arose in 2000; the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued in 1997, the delay in prosecuting claims was excessive and prejudicial, plaintiffs failed to provide evidentiary basis (eg medical reports) to justify extension under s24 or to avoid application of equitable delay principles, accordingly the proceeding was struck out as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process and costs awarded to defendant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' proceeding struck out

Orders

  • Proceeding struck out
  • Plaintiffs in their personal capacity to pay defendant's costs on a 2B basis and disbursements as approved by the Registrar